Point of No Return (Mark Steyn)

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by 427 S/O

vrm reminds me of the guy who tripped on the escalator and fell down stairs for an hour and a half........I'll be good.....

A day off for being in the area and for being an extremely able sh!t-starter, and because you'll whine if I don't include you...suspended because that comment made me LMFAO.

Now...anyone else?

[wtm442]

Round of applause for Jamo. Well done! Only 2 more weeks and then you can relax for at least 15 minutes.

[mdmull]

" A large number of the "founding fathers" were not Christians"? Really! How many FFs were there & what constitutes a "large number"? I think a little source info would pad the argument.

[fasterpatrick]

The only solution;

Maybe we need to start a march.

[nevermind65]

Originally Posted by mdmull

" A large number of the "founding fathers" were not Christians"? Really! How many FFs were there & what constitutes a "large number"? I think a little source info would pad the argument.

Many were Deists.

Deism in the United States
Thomas Paine

In the United States, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Founding Fathers who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence. Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen [32] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe). Elihu Palmer (1764-1806) wrote the "Bible" of American deism in his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York."

[427 S/O]

Patrick, Now that's a T-shirt I like.

[BeanCounter]

nevermind,

Many of the classical deists that you name still considered themselves Christians but considered Jesus to be only a holy and moral man rather than the son of God. Read Jefferson, especially his letters to John Adams to get a better idea of the Deist concept with the founding fathers. Denying a single tenant of a faith in no way totally undermines the "Judeo/Christian" underpinnings of it.

[MChat]

Originally Posted by VRM

And BTW, we were not founded on Judeo-Christian principles - a large number of the FF were not Christians, and did not want this to be a Christian nation. They took what they considered to be the best from a variety of religions and forms of government and made it ours.

I'm sorry but this is a blatant lie.

The 1st Amendment protection of the Freedom of Religion was intended to keep the Gov't out of the Churches' business; it was not intended to eradicate all forms of Christianity from public places as it is being used now. The worry was about the Gov't creating a "state Church" rather than allowing the various denominations of Christianity to be free to worship as they choose.

Many of the early documents (including the Declaration of Independence) made frequent references to the Christian/Jewish God.

[MChat]

Originally Posted by mdmull

" A large number of the "founding fathers" were not Christians"? Really! How many FFs were there & what constitutes a "large number"? I think a little source info would pad the argument.

There's two that I'm aware of. Jefferson and Franklin.

Jefferson believed in God, but didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and also didn't believe in the Resurrection.

Franklin heard one of the great preachers of the time (I forget which one) and at the end of the message said something to the effect of "you almost convinced me to become a Christian."


Alot of people today like to point at Jefferson having an English version of the Qu'ran, but most won't go into the history of WHY he had it. He didn't have it when they were framing the Constitution because he was President when he got it. When Jefferson was President, U.S. ships were being attacked (sunk and captives taken as slaves) by the Barbary Pirates. He was told that in order to stop the attacks, to pay off the North African "Caliphs" (Muslim leaders). So the U.S. paid the Caliphs and the attacks didn't stop.

So Jefferson had their "holy book" translated into English (hence the reason Jefferson had a copy of the Qu'ran), read it and then understood that paying them off was not going to work. That's when he sent the Marines over to pay a little visit to these caliphs. (Hence the lyrics of the Marine song "From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli"). See once Jefferson read how Muslims are allowed (commanded actually) to lie and deceive the "infidel" (that's us) he knew there was no bargaining with them, no peace agreement possible, no treaty possible; the only way to deal with them is to utterly defeat them.

Today people like to say that Jefferson was influenced by the Qu'ran, and that in turn influenced our Constitution. People can say it, but it isn't the truth; these people are just ignorant of history.

[imagine2frolic]

So Jefferson had their "holy book" translated into English (hence the reason Jefferson had a copy of the Qu'ran), read it and then understood that paying them off was not going to work. That's when he sent the Marines over to pay a little visit to these caliphs. (Hence the lyrics of the Marine song "From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli"). See once Jefferson read how Muslims are allowed (commanded actually) to lie and deceive the "infidel" (that's us) he knew there was no bargaining with them, no peace agreement possible, no treaty possible; the only way to deal with them is to utterly defeat them.

This is what I have said all along. If we are going to fight them we have to beat them down, and put a boot on their throats. I said it 2 years ago, and I am saying it again. It is a street fight. I think it was Patton who said "people surrender when they are tired of dying". I am sure if that is not correct someone will correct it.

[427 S/O]

Quote: I am sure if that is not correct someone will correct it.

No need to.......

[VRM]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

And that is why you are an elitist, VRM - nothing and no one is good enough for you, even the posters here have it all wrong in your view - although your view is stictly a minority view on these threads. Just pointing this out, no attack is intended.

You see, VRM the majority of posters here have issues with Obama, big time and issues with McCain, small time next to Obama - compromise i.e. McCain is the only logical and rational way to go this time around, along with Republicans in the house and Senate - third party voters are those that cannot compromise, they are a bunch of jackanapes thinking of themselves as principled people although in reality they are elitist unprincipled people that cannot see the forest through the trees. The ironic thing is that it may be people like you, the jackanape bloviators of America that may indirectly put Obama over the top. If that happens, America will never be the same and it will be full speed ahead to socialism.

CdC,
I don't deny always looking for improvement - why aren't you? There will be a point where I will accept whatever choice I make. In this case I have looked at all the candidates and decided that Obama and McCain are significantly lacking, but both for very different reasons. I don't agree with everything that Ron Paul stands for either, but I can accept the things that I don't agree with in order to get the ones I do.
You have only yourself to blame for Obama. SInce you elected someone as polarising as Bush who proceeded to run the country into the ground people will take whatever they view as opposite in order to fix the problem, because they view more of the same as not fixing the problem. I do hope that the GOP will come to its senses in 4 years.
I think the majority of Americans would be able to get behind a candidate who emphasised a good work ethic, strong defense, small government, personal freedom, and no socialism for companies or individuals. The GOP does not offer the last three, and the DNC misses the boat on the first two and last one.
I'm voting for the guy who offers some degree of all of those. Why aren't you?

[NeoConMan]

Originally Posted by imagine2frolic

See once Jefferson read how Muslims are allowed (commanded actually) to lie and deceive the "infidel" (that's us) he knew there was no bargaining with them

This is what I have said all along. If we are going to fight them we have to beat them down, and put a boot on their throats.

Very well put.
There's alot more to this story than American "oppression" and foreign policy gaffes bringing 9/11 upon ourselves.

This has been brewing for centuries (millenia?) and is fundamentally dangerous to our survival - before adding in the convoluted tribal factions and their grievances.
The Shiites see their time has come with Saddam out of the way, they aren't gonna play nice with anybody.
Ahmadine-jihad can smile all he wants speaking at the UN and Columbia University....

These people went from killing each other's sheep and beheading captives to using oil money to acquire the latest in weaponry from anybody that will sell quietly.

What's a few nukes between warring factions of Islamo-fascists?

[cobra de capell]

Notice to All Employees

As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama is officially elected into office, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:

1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you . This will serve to give those of you who are underachieving a “fair shake.”

2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst yourselves. This will help those who are “too busy for overtime” to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.

3. All top management will now be referred to as “the government.” We will not participate in this “pooling” experience because the law doesn't apply to us.

4. The “government” will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard “for the good of all.”

5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's “good to spread the wealth.” Those of you who have underachieved will=2 0finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more “patriotic..”

6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flatscreen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)!!!

If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by VRM

CdC,
I don't deny always looking for improvement - why aren't you? There will be a point where I will accept whatever choice I make. In this case I have looked at all the candidates and decided that Obama and McCain are significantly lacking, but both for very different reasons. I don't agree with everything that Ron Paul stands for either, but I can accept the things that I don't agree with in order to get the ones I do.
You have only yourself to blame for Obama. SInce you elected someone as polarising as Bush who proceeded to run the country into the ground people will take whatever they view as opposite in order to fix the problem, because they view more of the same as not fixing the problem. I do hope that the GOP will come to its senses in 4 years.
I think the majority of Americans would be able to get behind a candidate who emphasised a good work ethic, strong defense, small government, personal freedom, and no socialism for companies or individuals. The GOP does not offer the last three, and the DNC misses the boat on the first two and last one.
I'm voting for the guy who offers some degree of all of those. Why aren't you?

Why aren't you? He can't win! It's time for you to not do what's right for you and do what's right for America, by voting McCain-Palin - not perfect but also not Obama-Biden.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

Why aren't you? He can't win!

Why can't he? All it takes is enough votes. I'm doing my part, so if you and the majority of the rest of the country do theirs then it will be no problem.

If you limit your thinking you will limit your options. - Me, right now.

[cobra de capell]

Actually, I've given some thought to Ron Paul with the outcome that he's a nutjob or perhaps a nutbar like some posters here.

Thumbs down......because......

A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating. For whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together. It's like every spammer, truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner.

Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2.

Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq.

In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on America with this comment about 9/11: "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda. This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an America-hating left winger like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, not from a Republican running for President -- or from any Republican in office for that matter.

Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party: Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans. That's why the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, only pulled .3% of the vote. Even more notably, Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988.

Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Yes, and those are all admirable qualities. However, he also has a host of enormous flaws that makes him unqualified to be President and undesirable, even as a Republican Congressmen. Besides, I really don't see a 'leader' when I've seen him speak, I see a nutjob that no one in their right mind would follow.

[mdmull]

VRM has finally done it Obama is BUSH'S fault.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by mdmull

VRM has finally done it Obama is BUSH'S fault.

But, whose fault is it that we ended up with VRM (perhaps Jamo or ComputerWorks)?

[Jamo]

No...following your own logic, it must be your fault. He is the ying to your yang.